| Revision as of 18:50, 22 April 2023 edit2601:282:8100:32a0:d5b5:96c9:967b:c632 (talk) →Your vandalism on Clerks 3: ReplyTags: Reverted Reply← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 19:12, 4 January 2025 edit undoNJZombie (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers30,608 edits Reverted 1 edit by MontanaBrice (talk)Tags: Twinkle Undo | ||
| (115 intermediate revisions by 32 users not shown) | |||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| Nice job adding to the "Legacy" section. The negatives were written objectively, no undue weight, and the two paragraphs didn't come off as smear pieces. Nice job. ] (]) 01:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC) | Nice job adding to the "Legacy" section. The negatives were written objectively, no undue weight, and the two paragraphs didn't come off as smear pieces. Nice job. ] (]) 01:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC) | ||
| ==Carlos Correa vandal== | |||
| ==Your vandalism on Clerks 3== | |||
| Thanks for suggesting protecting ], which I have now done. When I wrote the talk page message saying "The article you have been vandalising has now been protected", I had seen only one article that had been affected, but later I realised there are more. It looks as though you probably know more about this vandal than I do, so if there are other affected articles that you can let me know about, I'll consider protecting those too. ] (]) 17:43, 4 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
| Calling a film a disappointment or bomb when it had high hopes and made far less money than it cost to make and market (the many additional millions that weren’t even included there) is far from vandalism. However if the rules are that important to you then you’ve been here 10 years and know darn well then about 3RR and so you are knowingly violating THAT rule. Two sources were provided. Please cease in your ] and assume good faith. Smith has had a string of flops, (ie.Yoga Hosers and Tusk, to name a few) so this is nothing new. Your position is coming from a place of personal taste, not the facts. Please seek consensus on a talk page if you truly feel like this information and my reasonable contribution should not be included. I get it, you like this movie and you are a Kevin Smith fan. But review ] then for proper etiquette. ] (]) 16:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks. I know they had been hitting ] at one point but that calmed down. However, they may resort to hitting that one again now that the others are blocked. ] (]) 18:26, 4 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :No, YOU don’t get it. In fact couldn’t be more wrong. I actually thought the film pretty much sucked and felt it was a huge disappointment. The problem here is you not sourcing your edits and adding your own personal analysis of it being a bomb or a disappointment which is NOT supported by your sources at all. You simply added its budget and revenue and then added your own personal views at the end. The sourced part about the revenue and budget are fine, hence why that hasn’t been touched. You have zero knowledge of what a film company or Smith expected a limited run engagement to bring in. Your unsourced POV edits of it being a bomb are the issue here and the constant addition of unsourced info, using multiple IP addresses, is what is actually considered vandalism. In fact your own edit warring on the article, and the IP hopping to do so, has already been addressed elsewhere on Misplaced Pages within the last 24 hours and the only reason action wasn’t taken at that time is because you hadn’t been warned yet. ] (]) 18:29, 22 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :: Well, there has been continual vandalism at ] for years, so I think protecting it may be a good idea anyway. I have now checked all of the editing history of all the accounts I know of, and semi-protected all of the articles. Unfortunately, sometimes the effect of doing that is just to drive the vandal to other articles, but it's still worth trying. ] (]) 20:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::As the admin pointed out, you are confusing me/us with a political troll. File a proper SPI if you think this is IP socking/hoping. Also had this movie been a hit then Smith certainly would’ve been bragging about it in the media, as would the sources to back it up. Yet nothing. Just because there is nothing in the rules that a donkey can’t play in the NFL doesn’t mean one can to quote the aforementioned Disney movie, hence your fallacious logic. | |||
| ::We compromised and removed the language “box office failure/bomb” for more neutral wording to satisfy your zealous emo stance. If that isn’t enough, then this is the time to assume good faith, and get a proper consensus by way of a vote on the article’s talk page. | |||
| ::But when you knee-jerk accuse the occasional part-time anonymous editors of “repeated vandalism” and “socking” without proper evidence or protocols then you reveal your agenda, and can’t blame others for reacting to you the way you do with you assume bad faith and attack others simply for disagreeing with you over a movie you (obviously) like. I’m done. ] (]) 18:50, 22 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 19:12, 4 January 2025
You deserve this
even if you don't want it, just delete it then... :)
|
The Music Barnstar | |
| for all that good work on the Mucky Pup and other pages on which we've crossed paths... Luminifer (talk) 05:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC) |
Vince
Nice job adding to the "Legacy" section. The negatives were written objectively, no undue weight, and the two paragraphs didn't come off as smear pieces. Nice job. Kjscotte34 (talk) 01:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Carlos Correa vandal
Thanks for suggesting protecting List of people from Minnesota, which I have now done. When I wrote the talk page message saying "The article you have been vandalising has now been protected", I had seen only one article that had been affected, but later I realised there are more. It looks as though you probably know more about this vandal than I do, so if there are other affected articles that you can let me know about, I'll consider protecting those too. JBW (talk) 17:43, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks. I know they had been hitting Shannon Sharpe at one point but that calmed down. However, they may resort to hitting that one again now that the others are blocked. NJZombie (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
- Well, there has been continual vandalism at Shannon Sharpe for years, so I think protecting it may be a good idea anyway. I have now checked all of the editing history of all the accounts I know of, and semi-protected all of the articles. Unfortunately, sometimes the effect of doing that is just to drive the vandal to other articles, but it's still worth trying. JBW (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC)